federal assault weapons ban

roger wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i trust the gun.

but, i've had enough experiences in life to tell me that not every person can be trusted. therefore, i do not want "instant gratification" access to guns. i do not want the average citizen strapped hotter than law enforcement.

Why, I happen to agree. You know that certain persons are prohibited from owning firearms, of course. The prohibition, of course, is based on past behavior. Convicted felons lose that particular right. Should the rest of us? I would say, no.

Now, McTag has concerns about the person who becomes temporarily, and violently irrational. I share that concern, and if he's bigger, younger, and more athletic than I, I want the means to protect myself from him. That seems to be a difference of viewpoint, and I'm not planning to budge. In any case, my expection is that crimes, and crimes of violence with or without firearms are comitted by repeat offenders, not someone suddenly going beserk after thirty or forty years with a spotless record. The abberations are not cause for all to surrender the right.

well it does enter into the conversation that, yes, certain people are prohibited from legally aquiring a firearm. because of past behavior.

which is why they rely heavily on the black market for stolen guns. some are through theft, some are bought by private parties that "lose" or have had guns "stolen" by arrangement.

so, back to square one.

0 Replies

Enforce your existing law and you can advance to square two.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Enforce your existing law and you can advance to square two.

did you miss this part ? ;

well it does enter into the conversation that, yes, certain people are prohibited from legally aquiring a firearm. because of past behavior.

which is why they rely heavily on the black market for stolen guns. some are through theft, some are bought by private parties that "lose" or have had guns "stolen" by arrangement.

0 Replies

After Children Squabble, a Mother Is Shot Dead
By MICHAEL WILSON
What began as a spat between a 9-year-old and a 7-year-old
ended in murder on Monday night when a relative of one
child shot the 7-year-old girl's mother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/nyregion/29slay.html?th

I wonder if the gunman was a member of the organized Militia?

0 Replies

How about we listen to what the United States Department of Justice has to say about the 2nd Amendment:

Second Amendment Secures Individual Right

A recent memorandum opinion for the U.S. Attorney General states: "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. [O]ur examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. [T]he broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England`s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment`s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require."

Link to the Department Of Justices decision HERE

The Right to keep and bear arems is an INDIVIDUAL Right as many of us knew from the outset, now you all know it too.

0 Replies

Federal

I guess that because the department of justice says it it must be so. Considering that they are infallible and omnipitant. By they way who heads up the department of justice. Is that Ashford the crisco kid guy. And who will replace him Bush's yes man the lawyer who approved torture of prisoners.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

The Right to keep and bear arems is an INDIVIDUAL Right as many of us knew from the outset, now you all know it too.

The US Justice Department speaks as authoritatively on the constitution as does any private citizen. Let us know when the Supreme Court adopts the Justice Dept's interpretation of the Second Amendment: then we'll know something more than we know today.

0 Replies

Yes, and since the administration and its Justice Department to change than the Constitution, I'm glad you point this out.

0 Replies

9.5 out of 10 LEO's support the right of the public to bear arms.

0 Replies

Everyone thinks that "they" should be able to bear arms, and do pretty much anything else within the law.
It's the other people who are the problem...who create the traffic jams, who generate the greenhouse gases, who spoil everything.
And it's the "other guy" who misuses his firearms who causes all the trouble.

So, you will never get a concensus of people who will say "take this right away from us". Nevertheless a wise administration has to make laws for the good of all- speed limits, alcohol laws, pronography laws, you name it.
Someone needs to grasp that particular nettle, of gun control and prohibition, IMO.

0 Replies

I thought you guys in England already had a ban on firearms?

0 Replies

I'm participating in this thread for the good of America, can't you tell?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Fedral wrote:
The Right to keep and bear arems is an INDIVIDUAL Right as many of us knew from the outset, now you all know it too.

The US Justice Department speaks as authoritatively on the constitution as does any private citizen. Let us know when the Supreme Court adopts the Justice Dept's interpretation of the Second Amendment: then we'll know something more than we know today.

Come now Joe, I have always enjoyed your postings and you are one of the 2 people on this board who's opinion I respect the most, but you are being someone disingenuous here aren't you?

If you are saying that the opinion of Mikey, who works behind the counter at McDonalds restaurant carries the same weight of authority as the opinion of the DoJ, which carries the authority of the Att. General, either you are flat out lying (and everyone knows lawyers never lie Smile

) or you are deliberately trying to provoke a response.

The Supreme Court hasn't yet made such a ruling is correct, but in absence of that ruling, I expect that the DoJ's ruling will have a great amount of weight where it matters... that is among the various states...

Who knows... perhaps you might actually get your rights restored there in the 'People's Republic of Chicago'

Hope you and yours are well this time of year and BEST wishes for the New Year ... good life and health to you.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Come now Joe, I have always enjoyed your postings and you are one of the 2 people on this board who's opinion I respect the most, but you are being someone disingenuous here aren't you?

Moi?

Fedral wrote:

If you are saying that the opinion of Mikey, who works behind the counter at McDonalds restaurant carries the same weight of authority as the opinion of the DoJ, which carries the authority of the Att. General, either you are flat out lying (and everyone knows lawyers never lie ) or you are deliberately trying to provoke a response.

Or there's always a third option: I'm right.

Fedral wrote:

The Supreme Court hasn't yet made such a ruling is correct, but in absence of that ruling, I expect that the DoJ's ruling will have a great amount of weight where it matters... that is among the various states...

The attorney general can issue opinions on the interpretation of federal statutes, and those opinions carry some weight, given that the executive branch is solely in charge of enforcing federal laws (the same thing is true about state attorneys general issuing opinions on state laws). So courts, for instance, will generally defer to an attorney general's opinion regarding a matter of statutory interpretation absent some reason to deviate from it. But the executive branch is not in charge of interpreting the constitution (that's the province of the courts), and so the attorney general's opinions on constitutional interpretation should carry no weight whatsoever. They are, therefore, as authoritative as the opinions delivered by Mikey along with your Big Mac. Indeed, considering the record of the current attorney general, I would repose more trust in Mikey's opinions.

Fedral wrote:

Who knows... perhaps you might actually get your rights restored there in the 'People's Republic of Chicago'

Rights? We don't need no stinkin' rights!

Fedral wrote:

Hope you and yours are well this time of year and BEST wishes for the New Year ... good life and health to you.

Right back atcha'.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I thought you guys in England already had a ban on firearms?

I think our laws are similar to yours (which will vary from state to state I suppose) in that we need a licence to own a gun legally. The difference is, it will almost never be granted. It is hard to get even a shotgun licence, and even if you get one, it's hard to keep it. The police are quite vigilant. Your premises are subject to inspection (to ensure the gun is kept securely locked away) and the licence is subject to an annual renewal.

So I suppose the main difference is in how the law is applied, and in the perception of who "needs" to own a gun. Even British police do not normally carry firearms.

The difference in effect is that gun crime here is a very small fraction of gun crime in the US (I think of the order of one percent)

0 Replies

the argument, at least for me, is not "the right to bear arms". so everybody running around waving the second amendment yet again is not really where the debate lies. for those who missed my earlier posts, i'll restate this part;

i am not anti-gun. i am not afraid of guns. i do not believe that there should be no gun ownership. i am a gun owner.

the debate is, i believe, is what types of guns should the private citizen be allowed, by law, to own.

does anyone here really believe that the average citizen should have a more powerful weapon than law inforcement ?

does anyone here really believe that the abundence of military level weapons that are used daily by criminals and g-dawgs is of benefit to the country ?

does a real huntsman require a military level or style weapon to bring down game ?

if you are in posession of whatever model of assualt rifle you want to have, because the 2nd amendment says you can have it, are you confident that you and your assualt weapon can stave off a government gone wrong and it's military and para-military police ?

if you believe that your answer to above is yes;

where do you believe the line should be drawn ?

fully automatic weapons ?

machine pistols, such as an uzi ?

bazookas ?

rpg's

hand grenades?

how about land mines ?

tanks ?

stinger missiles ?

better yet, a PATRIOT missile ?

and one last question that is important to the debate;

what is more important to you;

the safety of my family from criminals and sociopaths armed with more powerful weapons than the police officers that are sworn to protect them ?

hunting deer with an ak-47 because i'm not a good enough shot to use a .30-06 ?

screw the family. tearing the ass out of a watermelon with an assualt weapon is good hormone replacement therapy and it makes me feel real good ?

0 Replies

Any non-military grade weapon they desire/can afford.

0 Replies

Define "military-grade weapon."

0 Replies

For what it's worth, McTag, not all our states require licensing or permits. In my state, for example, there is simply nothing to deny. Complete the federal form, withstand the background check, and finally, withstand the sticker price, and it's yours.

Don't Tread, I know I left a question of yours hanging. Maybe I can get back to it over the weekend.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

For what it's worth, McTag, not all our states require licensing or permits. In my state, for example, there is simply nothing to deny. Complete the federal form, withstand the background check, and finally, withstand the sticker price, and it's yours.

Ah, right. Quite different, then.

There is no mail order in guns here, of course, and very few gun shops, sorry stores.
Some people collect guns which have been altered so they will not fire- but I think the police do not favour this, since a semi-skilled fitter with the right tools can get them back to working order again.

There has been an increase in gun crime in the UK in the last five or so years (although the last person convicted for murder was an American wanted in Florida!) and that is among the drug-dealing fraternity in some of the big cities. These boys do not bother with licences.
There seems to be an increased black market in illegally-held guns, some of high quality, Czech and Austrian manufacture.

Anyway, I'm getting off the subject.
Should ordinary citizens possess firearms? No.
Should hunters possess military equipment? No.
Should all guns be licensed, and their owners tested? Yes.
Should the cost of this fall on the arms industry? Yes.

Happy New Year. McT

0 Replies

federal assault weapons ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know